Plantiga's ontological argument.

[Angrboda]

Well, this assumes modal logic S5 from what I understand. I don't understand modal logic, so someone else will have to comment on that. I suspect, though, that although the necessary being in his argument is typically referred to as 'God', one can substitute 'the universe' as that necessary being without loss of generality. Anybody here know modal logic well enough to comment?

I don't think you can do that, because the universe by definition, is one possible world. There can be ontologically other possible universes.

This is also because the universe has properties that aren't necessary by it's definition.

Also, even if the universe was necessary, it doesn't disprove a necessary living being.

You can substitute:

"A necessary living being is ontologically possible" and the proof would remain the same.

I think you've gone off the rails on this one, darling.